Le 30-nov.-07, à 20:00, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Here I am an ultrafinitist. I believe that the universe is strictly
finite. The space and time are discrete. And the space today have a
limit. But the time might be without limit, that I don't know.
Then you are physicalist before
Le 30-nov.-07, à 20:21, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Why can't our universe be modelled by a cellular automata?
By UDA, this is just a priori impossible.
What *is* still possible, is that you can modelize the emergence of
the appearance of a universe by modelling, with a cellular automata, a
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 19:28:05 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:52:36 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
What is the production rules of the noset R ?
How do you define the set R?
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 29-nov.-07, à 17:22, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
There is a difference between unlimited and infinite. Unlimited
just says that it has no limit, but everything is still finite. If
you
add something to a finite set, then the new set will always be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
On Nov 28, 9:56 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event,
according to the rules. And after that event will follow
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:00:17 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi
Jesse Mazer skrev:
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:55:20 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As
Jesse Mazer skrev:
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:55:20 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As soon as you say the set of ALL numbers, then you are forced to
define the word ALL here. And for every definition, you are forced to
introduce a limit. It is not possible to define the word
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Hi,
Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event,
according to the rules. And after that event
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Hi,
Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
rules for that model, then one event will
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
There is a difference between unlimited and infinite. Unlimited
just says that it has no limit, but everything is still finite. If you
add something to a finite set, then the new set will
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
There is a difference between unlimited and infinite. Unlimited
just says that it has no limit, but everything is still
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
As soon as you talk about the set N, then you are making a closure
and making that set finite.
Ok then the set R is also finite ?
Yes.
The only possible way to talk about
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:52:36 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
As soon as you talk about the set N, then you are making a closure
and making that set finite.
Ok then the set R is
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:25:54 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:52:36 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
What is the production rules of the noset R ?
How do you define the set R?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_real_numbers
Choose your
Jesse Mazer skrev:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As soon as you talk about the set N, then you are making a closure
and making that set finite.
Why is that? How do you define the word set?
The only possible way to talk about
something without limit, such as natural
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:55:20 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi
Jesse Mazer skrev:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As soon as you talk about the set N, then
Marc, please, allow me to write in plain language - not using those
fancy words of these threads.
Some time ago when the discussion was in commonsensically more
understandable vocabulary, I questioned something similar
to Günther, as pertaining to numbers - the alleged generators of
'everything'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
When I talk about pure mathematics I mean that kind of mathematics you
have in GameOfLife. There you have gliders that move in the
GameOfLife-universe, and these gliders interact with eachother when they
meet. These gliders you can see as physical objects.
Hi,
Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
When I talk about pure mathematics I mean that kind of mathematics you
have in GameOfLife. There you have gliders that move in the
GameOfLife-universe, and these gliders interact with
Le 28-nov.-07, à 05:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
On Nov 28, 3:16 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 27-nov.-07, à 05:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Geometric properties cannot be derived from
informational properties.
I don't see why. Above all, this would make the
Le 28-nov.-07, à 09:56, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
When I talk about pure mathematics I mean that kind of mathematics
you have in GameOfLife. There you have gliders that move in the
GameOfLife-universe, and these gliders interact with eachother when
they meet.
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 28-nov.-07, à 09:56, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model
and rules for that model, then one event will follow after another
event, according to the rules. And after that event will follow
On Nov 28, 9:56 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event,
according to the rules. And after that event will follow another more
event, and so on
Dear Marc,
Physics deals with symmetries, forces and fields.
Mathematics deals with data types, relations and sets/categories.
I'm no physicist, so please correct me but IMHO:
Symmetries = relations
Forces - could they not be seen as certain invariances, thus also
relating to symmetries?
Le 27-nov.-07, à 05:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Geometric properties cannot be derived from
informational properties.
I don't see why. Above all, this would make the computationalist wrong,
or at least some step in the UDA wrong (but then which one?).
I recall that there is an
On Nov 28, 1:18 am, Günther Greindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear Marc,
Physics deals with symmetries, forces and fields.
Mathematics deals with data types, relations and sets/categories.
I'm no physicist, so please correct me but IMHO:
Symmetries = relations
Forces - could they not
On Nov 28, 3:16 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 27-nov.-07, à 05:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Geometric properties cannot be derived from
informational properties.
I don't see why. Above all, this would make the computationalist wrong,
or at least some step in the UDA
rafael jimenez buendia skrev:
Sorry, but I think Lisi's paper is fatally flawed. Adding
altogether fermions and bosons is plain wrong. Best
What is wrong with adding fermions and bosons together? Xiao-Gang Wen
is working with a condensed string-net where the waves behave just like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that everything is reducible to physical substances and
properties. And I think that all of physics is reducible to pure
mathematics...
You can't have it both ways. If
Le 26-nov.-07, à 04:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
As far as I tell tell, all of physics is ultimately
geometry. But as we've pointed out on this list many times, a theory
of physics is *not* a
Listers, (Bruno, Torgny, et al.):
some (lay) remarks from another mindset (maybe I completely miss your
points - perhaps even my own onesG).
I go with Bruno in a lack of clear understanding what physical world
may be. It can be extended into entirely mathematical ideas beside the
likable
Could we have a stop to HTML-only postings please! These are hard to read.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:51:36AM +0100, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
--
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
When I talk about pure mathematics I mean that kind of mathematics you have
in GameOfLife. There you have gliders that move in the GameOfLife-universe,
and these gliders interact with eachother when they meet. These gliders you
can see as physical objects. These physical objects are
On Nov 27, 3:54 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides which, mathematics and physics are dealing with quite
different distinctions. It is a 'type error' it try to reduce or
identity one with the other.
I don't see why.
Physics deals with symmetries, forces and fields.
On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
As far as I tell tell, all of physics is ultimately
geometry. But as we've pointed out on this list many times, a theory
of physics is *not* a theory of everything, since it makes the
(probably
Sorry, but I think Lisi's paper is fatally flawed. Adding altogether fermions
and bosons is plain wrong. Best
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:30:03 -0800 Subject: Re: Theory of Everything
based on E8 by Garrett Lisi From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Nov 23, 1:10 am, Bruno
Le 21-nov.-07, à 19:54, George Levy a écrit :
A theory of everyting is sweeping the Physics community.
The theory by Garrett Lisi is explained in this Wiki entry.
A simulation of E8 can be found a the New Scientist.
The Wiki entry on E8 is also interesting.
Thanks, very
On Nov 23, 1:10 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now such work raises the remark, which I don't really want to develop
now, which is that qualifiying TOE a theory explaining only forces
and particles or field, is implicit physicalism, and we know (by UDA)
that this is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
As far as I tell tell, all of physics is ultimately
geometry. But as we've pointed out on this list many times, a theory
of physics is *not* a theory of everything, since it makes the
(probably false) assumption that everything is reducible to physical
substances
40 matches
Mail list logo
